That is a question that you really need to answer for yourself. I recommend taking advantage of the free trial of C1 and see what you like or don't like about it. Everyone has different tastes concerning raw converters just like concerning the best beer, the best car, the best ______. What is best for one person may not be the best for you.

At one time C1 was FAST and a NO FUSS Capturing and RAW developing MACHINE! (3.7)It made accurate files with excellent color, and razor sharp images. It was open to see all the folders at all times without crashes or jumping through hoops to do so.(Imagine the 3.7 platform with the new engine, and some of the new sliders! That would be the ultimate developer!)

Today, It is more like the the big giant of an app with growth in many directions it forgot its original job....It is a ball of wax just to even start using the app.I hesitate to launch it each time unless I have to. Before, when it was 3.7x... I honestly would get a smile. Imagine driving a Porsche GT2. I knew it was going to be a no fuss shoot. It didn't get in your way as it does now.

So, I honestly still love the dev engine, and even though I would imagine you can get the same results from LR. But I think to make a KEY image file to work from, I use C1 still, as I don't know or have the patients to mimmic the results, and I haven't yet sat down and run side by side tests in the results that are conclusive. When I did test it, It was a fast test and they were pretty much alike. That wasn't a good enough conclusion for me to drop C1. I still use 3.7 on the laptop to capture as each version required more hardware AND now 64bit OS spec with lots of RAM should be considered standard.

Besides.... I have to use C1, as LR doesn't support tethering to shoot Phase One backs. If you're already using LR, I guess your short answer is.... When you have to shoot with a DB back.

I had to modify this post and add..... that at the end of the day (sounds like a bad politician), I DO like C1 files better for much of the jobs I work on. I do love the color stability. and a number of tools and functions. It is an application with many great and very effective tool sets. NO DOUBT. The biggest problems are with the MODALITY of the application and where it has cornered itself. These complexities and direction C1 has taken results in my overall experience in using it. How would you feel if you are taken out from the driver seat of a Porsche GT2 on the speedway, and now a captain of a cruise ship with 4 stops through the western pacific? I'm not sure how much sense that analogy makes, but I sure wish they make a Capture/DEVELOP only version of C1! What is the likelihood of that happening?

For myself, I think the latest version of C1 v7 does the best RAW conversions of files, substantially better, of any of the RAW converter application software. I have now been using it for my Canon files and going back and re-visiting my files from Leaf and Phase One backs. And using it for film scans. I think the image quality difference is astounding.

I don't have anything good to say about it as you will see my explanation in other posts...But, people who aren't aware of other DAMs or haven't used LR as a DAM...Or those that have no idea how to manage files..... might have positive feedback if they JUST got into the need for a DAM and JUST so happened to need C1.

Also to note...My response is to the direction C1 has taken by incorporating a DAM system within a Raw processor. Although I don't like the way they implemented the DAM, as I think LR does a much better visual and smooth adaptation to using a DAM within a RAW dev.... BUT, most of my feedback has been due to the direction they have taken.

ANYONE looking to manage their files, I highly recommend The DAM Book by Peter Krogh (Digital Asset Management for Photographers). The key word is "For Photographers". This can be so many things and workflows these days... My book version is from 2005. I have read more recent versions, BUT I wouldn't be surprised if he has made most recent versions with DAM and RAW developers like LR as one tool approach. This would be to commercial industry, NOT optimal method. He does give real world situations. In fact I had a large number of images before I read the book, since I use ACDSee (at the time trying other kinds of DAM apps as well), I was already following what he recommends. There are different routes he recommends depedning on different situations. He also has good approaches to backing up your content.

I started with C1 "back in the day". Back then, C1 was the king (speed and quality). Today, it's not true anymore. Some files come out better from LR and others from C1.

Until v7, LR kicked C1 butt in highlight recovery. The problem is that v7 is very unstable on many systems (some people report that don't have any problems). If you use digital backs, you pretty much have to use C1. Since you are shooting Canon, you have options.

Another thing to keep in mind is the cost. C1 is more expensive (without gaining much nowadays) than LR. Also, personally, I like better LR workflow (I used to love C1's workflow until they changed to v4 and subsequent versions).

Bottom line, take a few different files (something with a lot of white in bright sunlight, deep shadows, sunsets... or anything that you shoot regularly) and run the same files through both programs. This way you can compare what you can get out of both programs and see which one makes more sense to you.

Be prepared for a steep learning curve with C1. That's another problem after v3.7 (and compared with LR): not intuitive at all.

Foot note: I uninstalled v7 and put back v6; that's how bad it was (and I don't trust the latest update).

Until v7, LR kicked C1 butt in highlight recovery. The problem is that v7 is very unstable on many systems (some people report that don't have any problems). If you use digital backs, you pretty much have to use C1. Since you are shooting Canon, you have options.

v7 has been out for a few weeks; like any new major release it's got some kinks that will be worked out soon. Same with every software (just look at every major OS release Apple has ever put out). Also, as you note, on many (most?) systems 7.0.1 is running rock solid.

It's probably useful to note that Capture One is enormously popular in the major markets at rental studios (on rental computers), with digital techs, and in major catalog studios. It also has a very strong user base of non-pro enthusiasts.

It's probably fair to say that LR is more intuitive and that C1 is more powerful. As one example look at the number/type/control of sharpening/noise-reduction in C1 vs LR. There are more sliders (e.g. one specifically for single pixel noise that you often get in longer exposures) which makes it harder to learn but also more powerful (you can reduce the noise in specific ways; you have more control). Another example is color editing where LR's sliders are very simple and darn good, but also fairly rudimentary in their control and implementation; "color editor" in C1 is really hard for first timers to learn, but it's an incredibly powerful way to create different color responses and handle color.

C1 is also has a MUCH more customizable user interface than LR. Every tool, icon, and area of the program can be rearranged to fit your needs and your screen size. It works great on a dual 30" setup and it works great on a 13" laptop (or as great as anything can be expected to work on such a small screen). This, again, takes training or a lot of time to learn, but offers more to those who need such flexibility and power.

Plus the color engine in C1 is really well renowned.

In other words, C1 is not trying to be mass-market prosumer. They are targeted squarely at pro users and image-quality oriented enthusiasts.

Several of the posters on this thread have long had their objections to the way C1 workflow is set up. These are well founded, intelligently formed objections - for THEM and for THEIR workflow needs/desires. After you look into C1 and it's workflow you may find you agree with these vocal detractors, or you may find (as many do) that the session workflow makes a lot of sense (or the Catalog workflow recently introduced in v7). I find it enlightening that these vocal detractors still use it despite feeling very strongly that it's setup/workflow is not the way they want to work; I think that speaks volumes about the image quality in C1 :-).

Definitely the best option is to download the trial and run some tricky files through it and compare for yourself.

...I find it enlightening that these vocal detractors still use it despite feeling very strongly that it's setup/workflow is not the way they want to work; I think that speaks volumes about the image quality in C1 :-).

Definitely the best option is to download the trial and run some tricky files through it and compare for yourself.

Or, it's maybe because of what I said earlier: SOMETIMES, the results are better from C1 and other times from LR. Your comment make it sound that it's ALWAYS the case. That is not true.

We do agree that he should try it for himself. And that's true with anything, not just C1.

Basically I never had any strange color problems with C1, ever. While LR4 is really good and has finally a RAW engine that is very good, I still have the on and off color cast issues that I never see with C1.

Until C1 v7, LR4 had two major features that where not there or in bad shape, that was Lens calibration and highlight recovery. With C1 v7 the highlight recovery is almost at the same level as LR4 and they included a lot of lenses with proper distortion removal, etc.

The one thing I truly miss in LR4 is a proper keystone correction, this is something that I use a lot in C1 v7.

Furthermore I like the detail color selection for manipulation more than the general selection you can do in LR4, plus it seems C1 lets me go more "wild" with how much I tweak colors.

What I also like in C1 are the Levels tools where I can "crop" the not used areas in a histogram. Similar thing can be done in LR4, but not in the same easy way I think.

What C1 had missing until v7 was DAM. Although it has now a catalogue, it is nothing what LR4 has. LR4 is just way better because it had that implemented since the first version. Easy tagging of keywords, maps, etc. This is just something that I utterly miss in C1 and where I do make heavy use of sidecar files to sync data from LR4 to C1 before I develop the RAW files in C1.

Although PhaseOne has a stand alone DAM tool called MediaPro, I never really liked it.

BTW, both have a huge gap in any good documentation. There are a lot of things in both programs that are just not or not enough documented in their "documentation".

Or, it's maybe because of what I said earlier: SOMETIMES, the results are better from C1 and other times from LR. Your comment make it sound that it's ALWAYS the case. That is not true.

We do agree that he should try it for himself. And that's true with anything, not just C1.

I was mostly referring to Phil who loves C1 but wishes it's overall workflow was different.

Also I was saying it largely in good fun, but I apologize if you felt it was misleading. So let me be clear: I would be the first to say that sometimes a specific file just looks best in LR, or Aperture, or Irrident Raw Developer. I may strongly dislike the way a given processor renders detail in one image, but find that same style of rendering actually works well on another image. Lightroom's circular sharpening artifacts for instance bother me in most of my portrait and landscape raws, but can look nice on abstracts and images with a lot of repeating geometric patterns.

My rule of thumb is if I'm going to be spending several hours on a given image that I should open it in each raw processor and play a bit in each one to see where I get. If I'm only spending several minutes on a given file I do in C1 every time - it has shown itself in my experience do to the best job on the widest variety of raws in the greatest range of adjustment. Of course I'm a very biased source for that comment (given that my day job is with a P1 dealer and P1 makes C1), but I shoot a lot on my own and the statement comes from that experience (and has broad support in discussions throughout the fora regarding image quality, detail, color, and toolset).

I was mostly referring to Phil who loves C1 but wishes it's overall workflow was different.

If the rental and digitech's is all C1 cares about, AND since it IS the only raw that captures with Phase One backs...it doesn't leave a LOT of hope. BUT it does leave a LARGE hole in the RAW market to be filled with such a superior developer. My question would be if there is light at the end of the tunnel for a 2 pronged C1 developer? ....

I just wish some big shot in C1 is reading and thinking..."Well how hard can it be to make a DB or ProLite version without all this session/catalog/extras, and keep the 3.7 method? We had it before!" ..And this big shot takes 3.7 off the dusty shelf and merges all the "good" tools (I am willing to consult with others in a group regarding priority tools) the sw engineers strip it down, and make it Bruce Lee, not Andre-the-Giant :-) (two of my favs in different ways). This would have ALL the "non-pro-enthusiast" users shut their mouths AND you have just filled the gap by taking the FAST lane in the raw market. This allows a reason for MPro to dust itself off and really correct the small, and some core issues and run not only along C1, buT!! as a DAM for other markets. The ProLitre developer would be a hit with all others that use a dedicated DAM. Who are these DAM user people you may ask? Big Corp and major and minor companies! Along with any pro independent studio in just about any capacity.

After Doug put it in somewhat questionable perspective with this statement.....

Quote

It's probably useful to note that Capture One is enormously popular in the major markets at rental studios (on rental computers), with digital techs, and in major catalog studios. It also has a very strong user base of non-pro enthusiasts

You might add that C1 is in the C1 training market which kinda helps it being self fulfilling. And the lock-in users of Phase backs which you can only capture using C1 helps make this market.

This makes me wonder Doug...Are you saying if shooters don't rent digitechs or have C1 training, then they are just enthusiasts and not Pro's? "Pro" I would define as making 60+% income by just shooting (not print or other related sales). I would also try and raise the level of pro with published work in major circulation magazines and those in event photography that are well established(although they may not use a MF DB, so they are not the locked in market). Also includes those independent photographers who shoot for agencies on hire, or direct to industry using DB... Is that good for being "pro"? I think the major cataloging studio market would love a alternat stripped down C1 app, as DAM apps are in place in these facilities. After the raw has processed the Key image, Out of C1 it goes.

I have over the years done the digitech renting, still do the studio catalog production. Are these "NON-PRO-Enthusiasts" because they don't rent a cart? That is a huge market you are dropping if you ask me. by your market division, there is already a strong emerged market of SERIOUS Pro shooters that you segment as "non pro enthusiasts".

I actually DO LOVE C1, if my passion for it hasn't rang through in posts...let this clearly affirm that. It is the reason I post. The commercialized marketing world we live in makes it hard when there are "experts" in so many departments of launching a sw product when real-world situations doesn't embrace the product.

I think the scope of people in this situation is heavily underestimated. In Marketing for "off the shelf" products, they have a saying that goes something like...."For every voice you hear feedback from, there is a good 80% that have already walked the other way".

Doug, you have been instrumental in providing so much support and guidance, and that is something I am thankful for, and surely others. I do hope here and in email to hear your thoughts.

I just wish some big shot in C1 is reading and thinking..."Well how hard can it be to make a DB or ProLite version without all this session/catalog/extras, and keep the 3.7 method? We had it before!" ..And this big shot takes 3.7 off the dusty shelf and merges all the "good" tools (I am willing to consult with others in a group regarding priority tools) the sw engineers strip it down, and make it Bruce Lee, not Andre-the-Giant :-) (two of my favs in different ways).

You understand that C1v3 on the Mac used sessions as its only workflow organization framework right? The windows version of C1v3 was a very very small part of the market for C1.

As someone who has used Capture One since the 3.x days, I find myself looking at Vr 7 with a positive. Since Vr 4.x came out I have been a session user and really don't find it that bad. I would actually prefer LR using a session workflow or at least offering one instead of the Catalog.

Areas I feel are value of consideration for a photographer would be.

1. If you shoot with a tech camera on a Phase back, the Capture One workflow is very good. It took me a few day's to figure out the new workflow in 7 for processing a LCC, but once you work with it a bit it just fits the workflow of the rest of the software.

2. Processing engine, if you haven't tried it, you have to try it to believe it. I find myself going back to older P45+ files and reworking them. The newer engine can pull out even more details and has a much better handle on noise. On the IQ files results are excellent also.

3. Local adjustments, greatly improved over VR 6, as you now have the ability to have more than 5 levels. I would love to have a fade opacity fade feature here . You can fade the brush opacity which works in the same way. But you have to remember you faded the brush opacity. If you go and create a new local adjustment the brush keeps the opacity from the previous setting.

4. Color adjustments, very nice workflow here too. You have the ability to make a global selection/change by color or you can do the same thing in a local adjustment layer and it will only effect the color in the area selected. On a typical image for me this comes becomes very important since many times when working on a blue sky, you can effect other areas in a image that you really didn't mean to effect. In LR you have the color sliders, but as I understand them, they always work on 100% of the image. They are no longer available when you are working under a selection mask in LR.

5. Side by side view. I love and hate this in Capture One. You still can't make a selection outside of the numeral sequence for side by side. So when working a nodal pano this is OK, but if you are working on a tech camera setup, where I usually shoot the center image first, then the files are out of order for Capture one. In good old 3.8 you put the boxes up there click on one to select it as active then clicked on a image in the filmstrip. You could determine the order. This still has not bee addressed in Capt 7. Still the side by side in Capture 7 loads faster and once loaded it's easier to move around the images than with LR. In LR, I still get confused with trying to do a side by side view comparison and with D800 files it really bogs down. I think it's the fact I am using a 30" monitor and for some reason LR has trouble with a 30" monitor when you have LR viewed at 100%.

6. To me it's very key that Phase makes such a strong piece of software, as when I look at what Canon has offered for the past 6 years, and now Nikon both offer much less flexibility. Phase allows a user of a DB to use the software free and you have to pay to use the pro version. As I have kept up with the upgrades, the 99.00 charge to get to 7 was well worth it. My main issue right now when working with D800 files in Capture 7, is getting good color profile to start with. LR is a bit better here, but still the 800e needs work IMO. I feel that Phase One did a better job on the D800 default profile than the one for the 800e and I do hope that this might get fixed later on.

Negatives, I have a few: All minor

1. No history, long overdue and I had hoped we would see this in 7 when working multiple files you can get lost fast using "edit-undo"2. No ability to make a color temperature adjustment in a local adjustment only on the main image (LR allows this and it can come in handy)3. No ability to force a side by side view4. No ability to have noise reduction in a local adjustment. This slider was visible in 6 but not active, I had assumed it would become live in 7, but now its gone.

As so many others have stated. You get 60 day's to try it. It's well worth giving it a look.

...Since Vr 4.x came out I have been a session user and really don't find it that bad....

I think I'm the only user that can't stand how sessions work

When I get home from a job, I download all the images to my HD. If you use sessions, C1 creates another folder inside your folder (and usually ends up having the same name as the main folder). In order to avoid that, there is some convoluted method that I was told by a C1 instructor. It's so "easy" that I couldn't remember 2 minutes after I was told.

When I get home from a job, I download all the images to my HD. If you use sessions, C1 creates another folder inside your folder (and usually ends up having the same name as the main folder). In order to avoid that, there is some convoluted method that I was told by a C1 instructor. It's so "easy" that I couldn't remember 2 minutes after I was told.

Phase, not everybody works tethered or imports from a card

1. Create a C1 session.2. Drag the raw files into the capture folder from wherever you initially downloaded them.3. There is no third step.

5. Side by side view. I love and hate this in Capture One. You still can't make a selection outside of the numeral sequence for side by side. So when working a nodal pano this is OK, but if you are working on a tech camera setup, where I usually shoot the center image first, then the files are out of order for Capture one. In good old 3.8 you put the boxes up there click on one to select it as active then clicked on a image in the filmstrip. You could determine the order.

On the other hand v3 you could only view 2 images (or was it 4? it's been years since I opened it). In v4-7 you can view up to 12 images.

Also in v3 you couldn't actually zoom in on the image in the main window, only in the "focus" tool.

In v7 you can rearrange the order of the thumbnails which can function as a stand in for the functionality you are asking for. I think it's unlikely you'll see them add any functionality to change the order of the preview images to be different than the order of the thumbnails - at least not anytime soon.

1. Create a C1 session.2. Drag the raw files into the capture folder from wherever you initially downloaded them.3. There is no third step.

But, that's the thing. I create a folder specific for the job. For the example sake, name it Doug Portrait. When I create the session, it prompts you for the name and location. If I select the folder where the images are (Doug Portrait), it will create another folder inside Doug Portrait. Now I have: "Doug Portrait - Doug Portrait - all the files" instead of "Doug Portrait - all the files"

The instructor said a way that's possible without having the extra folder (involved dragging files around as well), but I don't remember how.

The elegant method (and common sense) would be to create the session and let you pick the folder or create a new one if you need.